Bill Kristol Has No Business Making Demands of NR

Bill Kristol has demanded that National Review — everyone at National Review, no less — publicly confirm that they agree with him wholeheartedly on the question of Ukraine:

This sort of behavior immediately gets my back up. Partly, this is because such injunctions are intolerably presumptuous: It is unclear why Bill Kristol seems to believe that he’s the editor of National Review when he’s not even the editor of the Weekly Standard. Partly, it is because Kristol’s petition willfully misunderstands the role that institutions such as National Review ought to play in arguing about questions of great import. Partly, it is because the “or you’re the tail to Tucker’s dog” construction reminds me of the “Unpatriotic Conservatives” trap into which Kristol, and this magazine, fell two decades ago. And partly, it is because Kristol’s unyielding tone is redolent of precisely the sort of shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later foreign-policy approach of which he has been guilty during previous debates.

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

Bill Kristol has demanded that National Review — everyone at National Review, no less — publicly confirm that they agree with him wholeheartedly on the question of Ukraine:

This sort of behavior immediately gets my back up. Partly, this is because such injunctions are intolerably presumptuous: It is unclear why Bill Kristol seems to believe that he’s the editor of National Review when he’s not even the editor of the Weekly Standard. Partly, it is because Kristol’s petition willfully misunderstands the role that institutions such as National Review ought to play in arguing about questions of great import. Partly, it is because the “or you’re the tail to Tucker’s dog” construction reminds me of the “Unpatriotic Conservatives” trap into which Kristol, and this magazine, fell two decades ago. And partly, it is because Kristol’s unyielding tone is redolent of precisely the sort of shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later foreign-policy approach of which he has been guilty during previous debates.